Question: Rava said that they divide a golden garment. What would the halves be fit for?

They are fit for children of kings.

Support (Mishnah): If two were riding on an animal...

Question: How can they divide it? Regarding a Tahor animal, they can split the meat, but splitting a Tamei animal is a great loss!

Answer: We must say that they split the value.

Likewise, they split the value of the document.

(Rami bar Chama): We learn from our Mishnah that if one picks up a Metzi'ah (something Hefker) to acquire for another, it works. If not, it would be as if each holds half, and the other half is on the ground (and he does not acquire! The Gemara will discuss which part of the Mishnah teaches this.)

Rejection (Rava): Really, if one picks up an object to acquire for another, it does not work. Here, Migo (since) he can acquire for himself, he can acquire for another.

Support: If Reuven told a Shali'ach 'steal for me', Reuven is exempt, but partners who steal are liable;

The reason is, Migo (since) each can acquire for himself, he can acquire also for his partner.

(Rava): Since we say Migo, if a Cheresh (deaf-mute, who cannot acquire) and a Pike'ach (healthy person) lifted a Metzi'ah, since the Cheresh acquires, also the Pike'ach does.

Objection: We understand how the Cheresh acquires. (Chachamim enacted that he acquires what he finds, and) a Pike'ach lifts the other half for him;

However, how does the Pike'ach acquire?

Correction: Rather, the Cheresh acquires, but the Pike'ach does not.

Question: How does this rely on Migo?

Answer: Migo that two Chereshim who picked up a Metzi'ah together would acquire, a Cheresh acquires also when he picks it up with a Pike'ach.

Objection: Even if you will say that one can pick up a Metzi'ah to acquire for another, that is only if he intends for the other to acquire. Here, the Pike'ach wants to acquire for himself, but he does not acquire. Does he intend to acquire for someone else?!

Correction: Rather, since the Pike'ach does not acquire, the Cheresh does not, either.

Question: Why is this different than two Chereshim that pick up together? They acquire!

Answer: That is an enactment to avoid quarrels. Here, the Cheresh realizes that the Pike'ach does not acquire, so he does not expect that he should acquire.

Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ada): What was Rami bar Chama's source (that two people who pick up a Metzi'ah together acquire)?

Suggestion: He learns from the Reisha, in which two are holding a garment.

Rejection: There, each claims that he picked it up himself!

Answer #1: Rather, it says 'Reuven says 'it is all mine.' Shimon says 'it is all mine.'' This is extra, to teach that one can pick up a Metzi'ah to acquire for another.

Objection: We established that 'I found it' discusses a Metzi'ah, and 'it is all mine' discusses a bought object.

Answer #2: Rather, he learns from the Seifa. Reuven says 'it is all mine.' Shimon says 'half is mine';

This is extra, to teach that one can pick up an object to acquire for another.

Objection: Perhaps also the Seifa discusses a bought object, and not a Metzi'ah!

Question: If so, what is the Chidush?

Answer: One might have thought that since Shimon claims only half, he is like Meshiv Aveidah (one who returns a lost object), and he is exempt from swearing. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. Perhaps he schemes to avoid swearing. He knows that if he claims the entire object, he must swear, so he claims only half to be like Meshiv Aveidah.

Answer #3: Rather, he learns from the third clause: if two people were riding...

This is extra, to teach that one can pick up a Metzi'ah to acquire for another.

Objection: Perhaps this teaches that also riding acquires!

Answer #4: Rather, he learns from the last clause: when they admit, or have witnesses, they divide without swearing'.

Question: What is the case?

If it refers to a bought object, this is obvious!

Answer: Rather, it refers to a Metzi'ah (that they picked up together). It teaches that one can pick up an object to acquire for another.

Rava holds that we cannot learn from here. Migo (since) he can acquire for himself, he can acquire for another.

(Mishnah): If both were riding...

(Rav Yosef): Shmuel taught Rav Yehudah that riding or leading acquires, but the other does not.

Question (Rav Yehudah): Which one acquires?

Question: What is the case?

If one person rides or leads alone, would anyone say that leading does not acquire?! Surely, he would know that leading acquires!

Answer: Rather, Shmuel discusses leading while another is riding. Rav Yehudah was unsure if riding is better, for he holds the animal himself (Rashi; Tosfos - he holds the halter);

Or, perhaps leading is better, for he causes the animal to go.

Version #1 - Answer (Rav Yehudah - Mishnah): If one is leading two different species of animals pulling a wagon, and one sits in the wagon, both are lashed (for working with Kil'ayim);

R. Meir exempts the one in the wagon.

Shmuel: The opinions must be switched. Chachamim exempt the one in the wagon.

Inference (Rav Yehudah): Shmuel holds that riding alone does not acquire, and all the more so riding when another is leading.

Question (Rav Yosef): How can you learn about riding from sitting in a wagon? One who sits does not hold the Mosirah (halter)!

Answer (Rav Yehudah): Both Rav and Shmuel say that holding the halter does not acquire a Hefker animal.

Version #2: Rav Yosef resolved from the Mishnah, like above.

Question (Abaye): How can you learn about riding from sitting in a wagon? One who sits does not hold the halter!

Answer (Rav Yosef): Idi recited a Beraisa that says that holding the halter does not acquire a Hefker animal. (end of Version #2)

(R. Chelbo): Taking the halter from the seller acquires, but this does not acquire a Hefker animal.

Question: What is the significance of the word 'Mosirah'?

Answer (Idi): This is like one who is Moser (hands over) something to another person.

This applies to buying, but no one gives over Hefker!

Question (Mishnah): If both were riding on an animal...

Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?

Suggestion: It is R. Meir (according to Shmuel, who switched the opinions in the above Mishnah).

Rejection: He holds that even sitting in the wagon acquires! (He would not need to teach an extra clause here to teach that riding acquires.)

Answer: Rather, it is Chachamim. This shows that riding acquires!

Answer: The Mishnah discusses one who conducts it with his legs.

Question: The Reisha says that one was riding and one was leading. (If he conducts with his legs, both lead it!)

Answer: The Mishnah discusses two kinds of leading.

One might have thought that riding is better, because he both leads and holds the animal. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.